>How do I do that?
I added this one, so no need. But if you follow the link to the
SourceForge tracker on the bug reports page, all you have to do is
click on "Submit New", fill in the details (and don't forget your e-
mail address if you're not logged into SourceForge), and submit.
Hi,
Is there a way to register the number of words by each article in the search
engine? This would give a quick sense of whether the article is stub or not.
Danny
Dear all,
This is another hack-up of the Cologne Blue style, mostly using the
user-selected font.
This now uses CSS rather than tables (except for the table at the top).
Disclaimers:
* It does not yet have the final link layout, or any working links.
* Not all links are present.
* It probably does not validate yet, or work in older browsers which are
not CSS-aware.
I am purely tweaking this for gross graphical layout, and seeing if the
"ergonomic" sidebar is too big.
Please let me know if this continues to look clean and nice, and whether
something like this would be a good idea as a default skin, as and when
it is completely debugged and cleaned-up.
Neil
> Can we add a "contested flag" or something? That alerts the
> reader to the opinion (of any given author) that the content
> of the article is or might be tainted? A lot of the middle east
> articles popping up all over could then be tagged as not entirely
> reliable until everyone have had their say.
> If not as a specific feature, then at least as a convention on how
> to mark an article as controversial, for instance with an agreed
> upon keyword early in the article.
> I love Wikipedia, but this problem always gives me a bad feeling,
> and makes we feel like giving up. Something like this would help
> to civilize disagreements, and thereby divert a lot of energy away
> from them, and over to other articles.
I would consider just marking an article as "likely to be
controversial" or something along those lines as tantamount to
giving up on the goal of making it a good article, so I wouldn't
want that. On the other hand, it is not only acceptable, but
highly recommended, that the first paragraph if not the first
sentence of such an article simply tell the reader in plain
English that the topic is controversial and likely to contain
contradictory opinions. That's just part of describing the topic.
We could make a clearer statement of policy to that effect if
it would help.
The other wikipedias haven't been upgraded? They must feel left out in the cold.
kq
Stephen G. wrote:
>I think pretending they're not there is exactly what
>we should do. Until the other language encyclopedias
>get software upgrades, they have to use the English
>Wikipedia's file uploader.
>
>-- Stephen G.
I checked "most wanted" and found eight articles linking to "ununbium", which
as far as I can figure out is a misspelling, but is much more common on the
Web than "ununbiium". As far as I can tell, the temporary element names are
formed by stringing together the syllables "nil", "un", "bi", "tri", "quad",
etc., and adding "ium" to the end. If "ununbium" were correct, then element
122 would be unbbium, and element 222 would be bbbium, which can't be
distinctly pronounced. Does anyone have the definitive document on this?
phma
You deleted bobine120.jpg with the comment "wierd diagram in french, unused".
It is used in the French Wikipedia at
http://fr.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Le_Choix_De_La_Pellicule_En_Argentique .
Please undelete it. In the future, if an old orphan image is not blatantly
junk but you think it should be deleted, mark it as a delenda and let someone
else check. Also, when you delete something that has been nominated for
deletion by someone else, please note that fact.
phma